U.G. said many times that all it takes is a fraction of a second of the break of this continuity and the whole thing collapses, the end of the dream of existence. However, the caveat he states is that no activity of this world-mind or thought structure can ever bring this about. No amount of energy or will can be brought to bear because this also is part of the conditioned structure. A complete letting go takes place. It is not volitional. All becoming ceases along with notions of time and space.

I think that UG would be standing more closely to the truth if he had said "all it took for me was a fraction of a second of the break of my perception of continuity and the whole thing seemed to collapse, the end of my dream of existence. For me it seems that no activity of this world-mind or thought structure could ever bring this about. It seemed that no amount of energy or will which I exerted could be brought to bear because it seemed to also be part of the perceived conditioned structure. A complete letting go took place. It was not volitional. All becoming ceased along with notions of time and space."

This restatement show how whatever he said should have been bounded in scope to his own preceived experience......it looks like you are presenting UG as someone who had a psychic knowledge of all experience in all places and throughout all time. Is that what UG claimed?
chownah

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a 'psychic knowledge' of all experience. Keep in mind that I am a 3rd party relating what someone else said using words that are not perfect or precise. Do they exist? You seem to take particular exception with the way some people express things. It is not a perfect action so I hope you don't think there is a perfect expression of any of this.

U.G. said many times that all it takes is a fraction of a second of the break of this continuity and the whole thing collapses, the end of the dream of existence. However, the caveat he states is that no activity of this world-mind or thought structure can ever bring this about. No amount of energy or will can be brought to bear because this also is part of the conditioned structure. A complete letting go takes place. It is not volitional. All becoming ceases along with notions of time and space.

I think that UG would be standing more closely to the truth if he had said "all it took for me was a fraction of a second of the break of my perception of continuity and the whole thing seemed to collapse, the end of my dream of existence. For me it seems that no activity of this world-mind or thought structure could ever bring this about. It seemed that no amount of energy or will which I exerted could be brought to bear because it seemed to also be part of the perceived conditioned structure. A complete letting go took place. It was not volitional. All becoming ceased along with notions of time and space."

This restatement show how whatever he said should have been bounded in scope to his own preceived experience......it looks like you are presenting UG as someone who had a psychic knowledge of all experience in all places and throughout all time. Is that what UG claimed?
chownah

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a 'psychic knowledge' of all experience. Keep in mind that I am a 3rd party relating what someone else said using words that are not perfect or precise. Do they exist? You seem to take particular exception with the way some people express things. It is not a perfect action so I hope you don't think there is a perfect expression of any of this.

I hope Chownah will forgive me for intervening here, but I think he is asking a similar question to the one I have asked you several times. Is UG (and, by extension, are you) making a point about his own personal experience? Or is the point universal, generalisable to all people? For example, to take just one aspect. Is the point about "no amount of energy or will can be brought to bear..." restricted to his own experience, or is it a categorical expression of what must be the case for all people? It seems to be expressed as the latter. It would be useful, I think, to be clear about this point.

I think that UG would be standing more closely to the truth if he had said "all it took for me was a fraction of a second of the break of my perception of continuity and the whole thing seemed to collapse, the end of my dream of existence. For me it seems that no activity of this world-mind or thought structure could ever bring this about. It seemed that no amount of energy or will which I exerted could be brought to bear because it seemed to also be part of the perceived conditioned structure. A complete letting go took place. It was not volitional. All becoming ceased along with notions of time and space."

This restatement show how whatever he said should have been bounded in scope to his own preceived experience......it looks like you are presenting UG as someone who had a psychic knowledge of all experience in all places and throughout all time. Is that what UG claimed?
chownah

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a 'psychic knowledge' of all experience. Keep in mind that I am a 3rd party relating what someone else said using words that are not perfect or precise. Do they exist? You seem to take particular exception with the way some people express things. It is not a perfect action so I hope you don't think there is a perfect expression of any of this.

I hope Chownah will forgive me for intervening here, but I think he is asking a similar question to the one I have asked you several times. Is UG (and, by extension, are you) making a point about his own personal experience? Or is the point universal, generalisable to all people? For example, to take just one aspect. Is the point about "no amount of energy or will can be brought to bear..." restricted to his own experience, or is it a categorical expression of what must be the case for all people? It seems to be expressed as the latter. It would be useful, I think, to be clear about this point.

It does seem to be a categorical expression for all people. I could understand people not agreeing with or believing this. But, when you see someone who is living without stress and describing the way they function, over time you begin to work through all the objections one has to someone saying this because the objections (desires, craving, etc. for something to attach to) themselves are what he is talking about. When someone states that Truth is ineffable, it is a categorical statement. This is a point that was argued constantly in his presence by people who came to talk with him. You could see how unacceptable it was for many people for U.G. to say this to them. Some would storm out, some would argue, He would explain but never change the explanation to suit anyone.

It does seem to be a categorical expression for all people. I could understand people not agreeing with or believing this. But, when you see someone who is living without stress and describing the way they function, over time you begin to work through all the objections one has to someone saying this because the objections (desires, craving, etc. for something to attach to) themselves are what he is talking about. When someone states that Truth is ineffable, it is a categorical statement. This is a point that was argued constantly in his presence by people who came to talk with him. You could see how unacceptable it was for many people for U.G. to say this to them. Some would storm out, some would argue, He would explain but never change the explanation to suit anyone.

Many thanks Saengnapha - that clarifies things a lot.

I can think of a potential problem with this position, but I'll wait to see if the discussion progresses.

U.G. said many times that all it takes is a fraction of a second of the break of this continuity and the whole thing collapses, the end of the dream of existence. However, the caveat he states is that no activity of this world-mind or thought structure can ever bring this about. No amount of energy or will can be brought to bear because this also is part of the conditioned structure. A complete letting go takes place. It is not volitional. All becoming ceases along with notions of time and space.

I think that UG would be standing more closely to the truth if he had said "all it took for me was a fraction of a second of the break of my perception of continuity and the whole thing seemed to collapse, the end of my dream of existence. For me it seems that no activity of this world-mind or thought structure could ever bring this about. It seemed that no amount of energy or will which I exerted could be brought to bear because it seemed to also be part of the perceived conditioned structure. A complete letting go took place. It was not volitional. All becoming ceased along with notions of time and space."

This restatement show how whatever he said should have been bounded in scope to his own preceived experience......it looks like you are presenting UG as someone who had a psychic knowledge of all experience in all places and throughout all time. Is that what UG claimed?
chownah

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a 'psychic knowledge' of all experience. Keep in mind that I am a 3rd party relating what someone else said using words that are not perfect or precise. Do they exist? You seem to take particular exception with the way some people express things. It is not a perfect action so I hope you don't think there is a perfect expression of any of this.

You have not addressed the substance of my post.

You seem to think that my post is based on your use of imperfect or imprecise wordings and that I "take particular exception with the way some people express things". I want to make it clear that the words you use describe what I have indicated perfectly and precisely....the question is does this clear and precise exposition actually present UG's ideas. I do not take exception to how you are expressing things...I am questioning just what it is that you are expressing.

I think it is pretty clear what I am getting at since I have made very similar comments in replies to a few of your posts.....but you have not addressed the issue I have raised in my post here.

Now you talk about you being a 3rd party.....many times before you emphasized how your understanding of UG's ideas was well informed because you spent many hours in his presence in both his daily life and in his discussions with others. So, now I'm confused. Are we to take your knowledge to be based on first hand observations of UG directly or is it really 3rd hand?....and if it 3rd hand who owns the 1st and 2nd hands?

I think that UG would be standing more closely to the truth if he had said "all it took for me was a fraction of a second of the break of my perception of continuity and the whole thing seemed to collapse, the end of my dream of existence. For me it seems that no activity of this world-mind or thought structure could ever bring this about. It seemed that no amount of energy or will which I exerted could be brought to bear because it seemed to also be part of the perceived conditioned structure. A complete letting go took place. It was not volitional. All becoming ceased along with notions of time and space."

This restatement show how whatever he said should have been bounded in scope to his own preceived experience......it looks like you are presenting UG as someone who had a psychic knowledge of all experience in all places and throughout all time. Is that what UG claimed?
chownah

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a 'psychic knowledge' of all experience. Keep in mind that I am a 3rd party relating what someone else said using words that are not perfect or precise. Do they exist? You seem to take particular exception with the way some people express things. It is not a perfect action so I hope you don't think there is a perfect expression of any of this.

You have not addressed the substance of my post.

You seem to think that my post is based on your use of imperfect or imprecise wordings and that I "take particular exception with the way some people express things". I want to make it clear that the words you use describe what I have indicated perfectly and precisely....the question is does this clear and precise exposition actually present UG's ideas. I do not take exception to how you are expressing things...I am questioning just what it is that you are expressing.

I think it is pretty clear what I am getting at since I have made very similar comments in replies to a few of your posts.....but you have not addressed the issue I have raised in my post here.

Now you talk about you being a 3rd party.....many times before you emphasized how your understanding of UG's ideas was well informed because you spent many hours in his presence in both his daily life and in his discussions with others. So, now I'm confused. Are we to take your knowledge to be based on first hand observations of UG directly or is it really 3rd hand?....and if it 3rd hand who owns the 1st and 2nd hands?

chownah

I don't really understand what you are talking about. What exactly do you want a response to? Lay it out simply.

It does seem to be a categorical expression for all people. I could understand people not agreeing with or believing this. But, when you see someone who is living without stress and describing the way they function, over time you begin to work through all the objections one has to someone saying this because the objections (desires, craving, etc. for something to attach to) themselves are what he is talking about.

Who payed UG's bills?
Did he work for a living?

When someone states that Truth is ineffable, it is a categorical statement.

And yet he stated it, effably.
Speaking in paradoxes is a cheap parlor trick.

This is a point that was argued constantly in his presence by people who came to talk with him. You could see how unacceptable it was for many people for U.G. to say this to them. Some would storm out, some would argue, He would explain but never change the explanation to suit anyone.

He constantly contradicted himself, that was what probably upset many people, and why they left, having gotten tired of it.

U.G. said many times that all it takes is a fraction of a second of the break of this continuity and the whole thing collapses, the end of the dream of existence. However, the caveat he states is that no activity of this world-mind or thought structure can ever bring this about. No amount of energy or will can be brought to bear because this also is part of the conditioned structure. A complete letting go takes place. It is not volitional. All becoming ceases along with notions of time and space.

I think that UG would be standing more closely to the truth if he had said "all it took for me was a fraction of a second of the break of my perception of continuity and the whole thing seemed to collapse, the end of my dream of existence. For me it seems that no activity of this world-mind or thought structure could ever bring this about. It seemed that no amount of energy or will which I exerted could be brought to bear because it seemed to also be part of the perceived conditioned structure. A complete letting go took place. It was not volitional. All becoming ceased along with notions of time and space."

This restatement show how whatever he said should have been bounded in scope to his own preceived experience......it looks like you are presenting UG as someone who had a psychic knowledge of all experience in all places and throughout all time. Is that what UG claimed?

UG's wording is rather typical for spiritual/religious authors. Such authors typically presume to know "how things really are" and that they have risen above the level of the merely personal/individual/private.
It's not that they are psychic or presume themselves to be psychic, it's that they are sure they know "how things really are", and that thus, they know that things are the same for everyone (so if they are one way for them, it must be that they are that way for everyone else as well).

(Compare, for example, how Christians believe that Jesus is everyone's Lord and Savior, not just the Christians'. Christians tend to believe that non-Christians simply refuse to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior, or are hindered by the devil from doing so. They can't genuinely imagine that someone really, genuinely, without refusal and without interference from the devil, does not see Jesus as their Lord and Savior. They are unable (but maybe unwilling?) to see things from other people's perspectives.)

It cannot even be said that they externalize or project or generalize their own experiences upon other people and unrightfully so. It's a kind of reversed empathy: "If it's like this for me, it's like this for everyone else." With that, the reference to the personal/individual/private can be omitted, personal pronouns aren't used anymore, and what remains are absolute, objectivist statements.

"all it took for me was a fraction of a second of the break of my perception of continuity and the whole thing seemed to collapse, the end of my dream of existence. For me it seems that no activity of this world-mind or thought structure could ever bring this about. It seemed that no amount of energy or will which I exerted could be brought to bear because it seemed to also be part of the perceived conditioned structure. A complete letting go took place. It was not volitional. All becoming ceased along with notions of time and space."

Only someone who firmly believes in a self, in the personal/individual/private could say that. Spiritual/religious teachers who talk like don't last long, or don't gain much fame (not enough to pay the bills), as it is far too easy for other people to write off such words as merely personal/individual/private.

It does seem to be a categorical expression for all people. I could understand people not agreeing with or believing this. But, when you see someone who is living without stress and describing the way they function, over time you begin to work through all the objections one has to someone saying this because the objections (desires, craving, etc. for something to attach to) themselves are what he is talking about.

Who payed UG's bills?
Did he work for a living?

When someone states that Truth is ineffable, it is a categorical statement.

And yet he stated it, effably.
Speaking in paradoxes is a cheap parlor trick.

This is a point that was argued constantly in his presence by people who came to talk with him. You could see how unacceptable it was for many people for U.G. to say this to them. Some would storm out, some would argue, He would explain but never change the explanation to suit anyone.

He constantly contradicted himself, that was what probably upset many people, and why they left, having gotten tired of it.

When I met U.G., he didn't work, didn't own anything, and was given a place to live by an elderly Swiss woman who befriended him in Switzerland.
Stating that something is ineffable doesn't mean that someone has described it. He would be the first to say that he had nothing new to tell you. U.G. generally didn't speak in paradoxes. Watching some of these videos will definitely give you a wrong impression of who and how he was. Context is important in conversation. The context is missing in most of these videos and transcribed talks. I could find nothing 'cheap' in what he had to say. He did joke a lot and made all kinds of remarks about people in the holy business. It was clear to me that he was not selling anything. His door was literally unlocked 24/7 for anyone wanting to see him.

Try not to judge something you know very little about, especially your knowledge gleaned from the internet.

U.G. said many times that all it takes is a fraction of a second of the break of this continuity and the whole thing collapses, the end of the dream of existence. However, the caveat he states is that no activity of this world-mind or thought structure can ever bring this about. No amount of energy or will can be brought to bear because this also is part of the conditioned structure. A complete letting go takes place. It is not volitional. All becoming ceases along with notions of time and space.

I think that UG would be standing more closely to the truth if he had said "all it took for me was a fraction of a second of the break of my perception of continuity and the whole thing seemed to collapse, the end of my dream of existence. For me it seems that no activity of this world-mind or thought structure could ever bring this about. It seemed that no amount of energy or will which I exerted could be brought to bear because it seemed to also be part of the perceived conditioned structure. A complete letting go took place. It was not volitional. All becoming ceased along with notions of time and space."

This restatement show how whatever he said should have been bounded in scope to his own preceived experience......it looks like you are presenting UG as someone who had a psychic knowledge of all experience in all places and throughout all time. Is that what UG claimed?

UG's wording is rather typical for spiritual/religious authors. Such authors typically presume to know "how things really are" and that they have risen above the level of the merely personal/individual/private.
It's not that they are psychic or presume themselves to be psychic, it's that they are sure they know "how things really are", and that thus, they know that things are the same for everyone (so if they are one way for them, it must be that they are that way for everyone else as well).

(Compare, for example, how Christians believe that Jesus is everyone's Lord and Savior, not just the Christians'. Christians tend to believe that non-Christians simply refuse to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior, or are hindered by the devil from doing so. They can't genuinely imagine that someone really, genuinely, without refusal and without interference from the devil, does not see Jesus as their Lord and Savior. They are unable (but maybe unwilling?) to see things from other people's perspectives.)

It cannot even be said that they externalize or project or generalize their own experiences upon other people and unrightfully so. It's a kind of reversed empathy: "If it's like this for me, it's like this for everyone else." With that, the reference to the personal/individual/private can be omitted, personal pronouns aren't used anymore, and what remains are absolute, objectivist statements.

"all it took for me was a fraction of a second of the break of my perception of continuity and the whole thing seemed to collapse, the end of my dream of existence. For me it seems that no activity of this world-mind or thought structure could ever bring this about. It seemed that no amount of energy or will which I exerted could be brought to bear because it seemed to also be part of the perceived conditioned structure. A complete letting go took place. It was not volitional. All becoming ceased along with notions of time and space."

Only someone who firmly believes in a self, in the personal/individual/private could say that. Spiritual/religious teachers who talk like don't last long, or don't gain much fame (not enough to pay the bills), as it is far too easy for other people to write off such words as merely personal/individual/private.

It's rather ironic that you say all these things yet you are here on a Buddhist forum where almost everyone acknowledges that there are people such as the Buddha and others throughout history who have come to the end of dukkha and live differently. Try not to judge yourself into a corner. It's a lonely place and there is little to be gained from it. This has nothing to do with Jesus, Buddha or anyone who has come and gone. Your own failure to understand your own conditioning and the anger you feel towards anyone who might push your buttons in any way are what you are projecting. Let it go, binocular. Let all your stress go...........You are always ready for a fight.

It's rather ironic that you say all these things yet you are here on a Buddhist forum where almost everyone acknowledges that there are people such as the Buddha and others throughout history who have come to the end of dukkha and live differently. Try not to judge yourself into a corner. It's a lonely place and there is little to be gained from it. This has nothing to do with Jesus, Buddha or anyone who has come and gone. Your own failure to understand your own conditioning and the anger you feel towards anyone who might push your buttons in any way are what you are projecting. Let it go, binocular. Let all your stress go...........You are always ready for a fight.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a 'psychic knowledge' of all experience. Keep in mind that I am a 3rd party relating what someone else said using words that are not perfect or precise. Do they exist? You seem to take particular exception with the way some people express things. It is not a perfect action so I hope you don't think there is a perfect expression of any of this.

You have not addressed the substance of my post.

You seem to think that my post is based on your use of imperfect or imprecise wordings and that I "take particular exception with the way some people express things". I want to make it clear that the words you use describe what I have indicated perfectly and precisely....the question is does this clear and precise exposition actually present UG's ideas. I do not take exception to how you are expressing things...I am questioning just what it is that you are expressing.

I think it is pretty clear what I am getting at since I have made very similar comments in replies to a few of your posts.....but you have not addressed the issue I have raised in my post here.

Now you talk about you being a 3rd party.....many times before you emphasized how your understanding of UG's ideas was well informed because you spent many hours in his presence in both his daily life and in his discussions with others. So, now I'm confused. Are we to take your knowledge to be based on first hand observations of UG directly or is it really 3rd hand?....and if it 3rd hand who owns the 1st and 2nd hands?

chownah

I don't really understand what you are talking about. What exactly do you want a response to? Lay it out simply.

I would like you to respond to all the questions which I asked. I think they are clearly put and not too complicated.
If you really don't understand what I am talking about I bet you are the only one who has no idea what I am talking about. Sam vara (for instance) seems to have a pretty good idea about what I am talking about.
chownah

You seem to think that my post is based on your use of imperfect or imprecise wordings and that I "take particular exception with the way some people express things". I want to make it clear that the words you use describe what I have indicated perfectly and precisely....the question is does this clear and precise exposition actually present UG's ideas. I do not take exception to how you are expressing things...I am questioning just what it is that you are expressing.

I think it is pretty clear what I am getting at since I have made very similar comments in replies to a few of your posts.....but you have not addressed the issue I have raised in my post here.

Now you talk about you being a 3rd party.....many times before you emphasized how your understanding of UG's ideas was well informed because you spent many hours in his presence in both his daily life and in his discussions with others. So, now I'm confused. Are we to take your knowledge to be based on first hand observations of UG directly or is it really 3rd hand?....and if it 3rd hand who owns the 1st and 2nd hands?

chownah

I don't really understand what you are talking about. What exactly do you want a response to? Lay it out simply.

I would like you to respond to all the questions which I asked. I think they are clearly put and not too complicated.
If you really don't understand what I am talking about I bet you are the only one who has no idea what I am talking about. Sam vara (for instance) seems to have a pretty good idea about what I am talking about.
chownah

Sam Vara asked me a specific question which I answered. I think it is the same answer to what you wrote. If it isn't, please ask again.